Are judges' reform vows dubious?

Carpenter

October 21, 2009|By Paul Carpenter Of The Morning Call

The "You Decide" feature in the Town Square section of Thursday's paper was a breath of fresh air, showing how both candidates for Pennsylvania Supreme Court are committed to "accountability" on the bench.

Republican Joan Orie Melvin of Allegheny County is on the state Superior Court, one level below the Supremes. She promised "reform," noting she is the only judge who fought the illegal pay raises approved (but only for judges) by the high court. "In light of judicial corruption," she was quoted as saying, she will fight for "transparency" as well as accountability if elected.

11/5/2009 FOR THE RECORD (Published Thursday, November 5, 2009) Paul Carpenter's column Wednesday discussed this year's campaigns by two candidates for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, saying both had accepted political campaign contributions from casino figure Louis DeNaples. Although such campaign contributions can be and are used by candidates in subsequent years and in subsequent election campaigns, the DeNaples contributions were made in 2003, as reported in an Oct. 21 column by Carpenter. The contributions were prior to the state's granting of a casino license to DeNaples.

The Democrat, Jack Panella of Easton, was a Northampton County judge and now is also on the Superior Court. He was quoted as saying he has "a firm commitment to public service and the belief that the citizens of Pennsylvania deserve a judicial system that strikes the right balance of independence and public accountability."

In recent years, the Supreme Court has had a key role regarding legislation on lobbying, political campaign contributions and the state's huge new gambling industry. Its rulings have gutted most efforts to strengthen ethics rules and are in lockstep accord with gambling industry wishes.

Therefore, I called the offices of both candidates to ask if they accepted campaign contributions from that industry.

"He has not," Panella's campaign manager, Aren Platt, said.

Panella, I asked, never took money from Louis DeNaples?

"No," Platt said.

I told him Common Cause of Pennsylvania sent me a list of judicial candidates who accepted such contributions, and Panella's name was prominent among those who received thousands of dollars in 2003. In Panella's case, most of it was from DeNaples, who developed the Mount Airy Casino in Monroe County, but turned control over to his daughter after a fuss about his criminal record and allegations of his ties to organized crime figures.

"Oh, in 2003 there was no gaming in the state," Platt said. If there was no gambling when Panella took the campaign contributions in 2003, he explained, it cannot be said that he took money from gamblers.

Slot machine casinos were legislated in 2004, thanks to millions of dollars in campaign contributions that gambling interests gave to various politicians. The slots law, although clearly unconstitutional, was then upheld by the Supreme Court.

Since then, Platt said, "the judge has made it clear he will not solicit nor accept contributions from gaming interests."

Platt emphasized that Melvin, Panella's opponent, also accepted a DeNaples contribution in 2003. I called her campaign office about that, but no one returned my calls.

In any case, I still hope for a refreshing breath of fresh air from the winner of this judicial race, although I'd be less dubious if they gave DeNaples back his money.

Last Wednesday, I discussed the way real reform in Pennsylvania has gone nowhere, even after dozens of politicians, including two Supreme Court judges, were either voted out of office or quit amid public anger over the illegal pay hikes (enacted in exactly the same unconstitutional way as the slot machine casino legislation).

In that column, I mentioned two Supreme Court justices, Russell Nigro and Sandra Newman, who, thank heavens, are no longer on the bench. The document sent to me by Common Cause shows that Nigro and Newman each accepted tens of thousands of dollars from gambling interests while on the court, but it did not stop there.

Those accepting big contributions from gambling interests also included current Justices J. Michael Eakin and Max Baer.

That column also discussed the way the state budget languished for eight months until a plan was hatched to include still another measure sought by the gambling industry -- to allow table games in casinos. It took only five days after that for Harrisburg to finally enact a budget.

Tim Potts, head of another watchdog citizens group, Democracy Rising, noted the table games plan came only after the Supreme Court "invalidated the slot law's prohibition against campaign contributions by gambling interests." That ruling was in April, "just in time for the drive to get table games," Potts told me. "That's so convenient I can hardly stand it."

Finally, last Wednesday's column conceded there are some good politicians in Harrisburg, and one of those I mentioned is Rep. Robert Freeman, D-Northampton, a consistent advocate of reform.

Freeman is co-sponsor of House Bill 1910, written by Rep. David Levdansky, D-Allegheny. It would put limits on political campaign contributions and I asked Freeman about its chances for passage.

"It's hard to say," he replied.

"Hard" may not be a strong enough word. House bosses sent HB 1910 to the State Government Committee, chaired by Rep. Babette Joseph, D-Philadelphia, widely regarded as a foremost foe of reform.